Re: Problematic mechanical dysfunctionality

[jeremy@xxxxxxxxx (Jeremy H. Griffith)]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:51:31 -0500, "Ridder, Fred" <Fred.Ridder@Dialogic.com>
wrote:

>I'm not sure I understand the circumstances you're referring to, Jeremy.
>Is this the tail end of a discussion that's been running on the Free Framers
>list?

Yes; my last post, which includes Jay's previous one, is appended for those
interested.  

I feel quite strongly that discussions of list performance issues are as
on-topic here as they are everywhere else on the Net.  They are certainly
encouraged on Free Framers.  If the list is an important tool for Framers,
improving it is obviously on topic; and how else can it be improved, if 
its members cannot *talk* about the problems???  It's a no-brainer.  IMHO.

>One thing I have noticed since the change to Lyris software on the 
>FrameUsers list server is that messages frequently arrive out of chronological 
>order.  This isn't a big issue in most cases, but I have noticed at least 4 
>or 5 occasions in the last week or two where I received a posted response 
>to someone's question well before I received the original query-- sometimes 
>by several hours.  This is pretty disconcerting and really doesn't do much 
>to foster coherent discussion on a topic.

I agree.  Note also my comments on latency below, in a post that was bounced
for being off-topic... the word "t*st" was written that way to avoid a filter.

>Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:04:52 GMT
>From: jeremy@omsys.com (Jeremy H. Griffith)
>Subject: Re: Explantion related to t*sting
>
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:58:56 -0500, Jay Smith <jay@JaySmith.com> wrote:
>
>>Earlier today I sent a t*st mailing to both lists.  My intent was to
>>make sure that there was activity on the omsys list and to attempt to
>>see the difference in time stamping.
>>
>>Well.... Guess what!  The FrameUsers.com new listserv software
>>automatically rejects t*sts.  In subsequent correspondence, Brad
>>explained that to me and also indicated that he has amplified/clarified
>>the information contained in the automatic response regarding such
>>rejections.
>
>Wow.  Does it reject anything with the word "t*st" in the subject?
>That seems an awfully antisocial thing to do to a technical list...
>We reject certain phrases used only by porn spammers, but that's it.
>
>>So, thanks to those that responded to me regarding this t*st.  I still
>>don't have a comparison, but that's life.
>
>FWIW, after your earlier note, I started paying attention to time of
>post vs. time of arrival.  It's been quite consistent all day.  The
>FrameUsers posts take an hour; the Omsys ones take a minute.  Literally.
>If you view headers, the time on the topmost Received header gives the
>time of delivery by SMTP to your own POP mail server, so comparing that
>with the time stamp in the Date header (origination time) will tell you
>the latency on the messages.
>
>Why does this matter?  Because the shorter the latency, the quicker the
>help to the inquirer, and the fewer the wasted messages repeating the
>same answer before the earlier answers start appearing.  Most technical
>lists I'm on personally, and I'm on many, have about a five-minute delay;
>anything longer would draw a firestorm of protests from busy programmers.
>We value our time, and don't want it thrown away by poor tools (or poorly
>configured mail systems).

Later on that day, I observed latencies of five hours in a few cases, and
of shorter times as the evening wore on, but mostly well over an hour.
I do hope that in the very near future, the service running this list
for Brad gets its act together...

-- Jeremy H. Griffith, at Omni Systems Inc.
   (jeremy@omsys.com)     http://www.omsys.com/
** To subscribe to Free Framers, email the message **
** body "subscribe framers" to majordomo@omsys.com **

** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **